USA v. Spencer et al

Filing
66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROLLIN LEE SPENCER, and
SUZANNE DENISE ROLLIER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:07-cr-00005 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
I. MOTIONS PRESENTED
At docket 50, defendant Rollin Lee Spencer moved to exclude evidence. The
United States filed a response at docket 62. At docket 51, defendant Spencer moved
for an order relating to a subpoenas duces tecum. The United States responded at
docket 63.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion at docket 50
In his motion at docket 50, Mr. Spencer describes himself with a flourish as “a
Living Man, Real Party in Interest Under Injury (“Creditor”), appearing by restricted and
not general appearance in specific and sole capacity as creditor to the Defendant and
Case No. 1:07 CR 00005 JWS (“Case”) and through Private Discharging and Indemnity
Bond, DTB-1052007- RLS-1 through 3rd Party Plaintiff and legal fiction Rollin Lee
Spencer . . . .”1 In fact, Mr. Spencer is a defendant in a criminal case brought against
him by the United States. The charges are not based on a bond, and have nothing to
do with debtors and creditors. An examination of the statutes upon which the charges
are based, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), makes that clear.
The motion asks the court to suppress “all evidence” arising from Spencer’s
arrest and interrogation and the search of “Greg Garrison’s floating structure.”2 It
appears that the major premise underlying the motion is Mr. Spencer’s contention that
the case at bar is actually a case in admiralty. From this premise, he reasons that all
the evidence must be suppressed.
The motion does not explain how the prosecution of charges that Mr. Spencer is
a felon who possessed firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)
cannot be prosecuted in this United States District Court pursuant to jurisdiction
expressly granted by Congress. Congress gave this court jurisdiction over any offense
against the laws of the United States in 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The charges here are that
Mr. Spencer committed offenses against the laws of the United States. The court’s
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 is entirely separate from the court’s admiralty
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
In addition to the assertion that this case is one in admiralty, it appears that
Mr. Spencer takes the position that the police officers who arrested him and conducted
a search lacked authority to do so. It appears that this contention is premised on the
proposition that this case is an admiralty case and that state and local authorities lack
power to make arrests and conduct searches on floating properties. As explained
above, this case is not an admiralty case. It appears that Mr. Spencer asserts that the
United States Constitution eliminates the jurisdiction of state and local police over
floating structures in state waters. However, Mr. Spencer cites no authority which so
holds, and this court knows of none.
1
Doc. 50 at p. 1.
2
Id. at p. 2.
-2-
B. Motion at docket 51
In the motion at docket 51, defendant asks for relief with regard to “attached
subpoenas.” The subpoenas to which Mr. Spencer makes reference appear to be
subpoenas duces tecum, for he asks that the books, papers, records, and documents
described in them be provided. However, no subpoenas were attached to the motion.
So, the court cannot discern what documents are sought or otherwise evaluate
Mr. Spencer’s request. It follows that the motion must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the motions at dockets 50 and 51 are DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 20th day of November 2007.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.